• masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    they’re not a random uprising that armed itself.

    Is that what I called them?

    not civilians grabbing weapons for a spontaneous revolt.

    Again… is that how I characterised them?

    This is an unserious comparison.

    Where did I compare them, Clyde? I merely used them to demonstrate that suffering military reversal does not necessarily mean the end of an insurgency.

    There are literally no examples of successful modern insurgencies starting as civilian uprisings.

    There is no such thing as an insurgency (“modern” or otherwise) that doesn’t start with civilian uprisings. No extant insurgency has “modern” roots - if that is what you demand an example off I’ll simply write your demand off as ridiculous and not worth bothering with.

    They did not wage an armed campaign against the Syrian state.

    Somehow, I don’t think Assad would have seen it that way if he had won the civil war.

    It’s political optics that constrained the state.

    Merely optics to you, actual political threats to them.

    Besides, Mexico did crush them militarily. It took 12 days.

    Again… not the first insurgency to survive military reversal.

    Modern states can annihilate insurgents when they stop caring about optics.

    Caring about “optics” is not the reason Russia suffered defeat during the 1st Chechen War.

    Most insurgencies don’t start as peasant uprisings that get crushed and then re-emerge lmao

    Complete mischaracterisation of what I actually said. Most insurgencies do experience military reversal at some point in their existence or other. And no…

    you’re just using some romantic examples

    …I never claimed there was anything “romantic” (whatever that means) about it.